Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Metropolitan Exim Chem. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I

2016 (4) TMI 1108 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Refund claim in respect of excess paid duty - rejection of refund claim in respect of excess paid duty on the ground that the appellant have not challenged the order whereby the rebate was disallowed - Held that:- We do not agree with the finding for rejection of claim for the reason that the rebate against the export is granted under Rule 18 of CER, 2002 and notification issued there under, whereas in case of any duty which is paid in excess can be refunded under the general provisions of refun .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fund are two different proceedings. The appellant have rightly claimed the refund of 4% excess paid duty the same should have been disposed of on its own merit without getting influenced by the order dt. 20.4.2009 by which the rebate was disallowed. - Decided in favour of assessee - Appeal No. E/1957/2010 - Order No. A/868/16/SMB - Dated:- 1-12-2015 - Ramesh Nair, Member (J) For the Appellant : Shri Sunil Agarwal, Adv For the Respondent : Shri V K Shastri, Asstt Commr ORDER The Appeal is directe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

te of duty was 10%, since the 4% which was wrongly paid is not payable, the rebate claim of the same was rejected. However, the adjudicating authority in his order directed the appellant that for allowing 4% of duty paid in excess the claimant is required to follow the procedure as per Central Excise Law. As per this direction the appellant filed a refund claim on 30.6.2009 amounting to ₹ 1,09,514/- against the disallowance of amount of rebate. In the appeal by the appellant before the Com .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e was rejected. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant is before me. 3. Shri Sunil Agarwal, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that appellant had paid 14% excise duty in respect of export clearance instead of 10%. The adjudicating authority has sanctioned the rebate of 10% and disallowed the rebate of remaining 4%. The appellant filed a fresh refund claim not in respect of rebate but for refund of the excess paid amount, therefore both are separate issue and there is no question of fi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version